Refresh my memory, please - were the lawsuits directed against specific gun manufacturers, or just the gun industry, or what?
The difference here is that the plaintiff has named specific restaurants that he frequented; the gun lawsuit wasn’t brought by a gun user who used a particular gun frequently
More popular, and not as powerful when it comes to lobbying. When’s the last time you saw the Fast Food Lobby push some legislation?
I think we’re overlooking a very important element here- Plaintiff’s Lawyers. Obviously, if this case were to go to a jury of typical (wide-bodied) Americans, the fast-food monsters would have the advantage. However, a good attorney, working for a 1/3 contingency, should have no trouble shaking down the image-conscious fast-food conglomerants for a sizable settlement.
Tars, old buddy? Can I use that as a sig???
I’m not surprised that the tobacco issue has been mentioned in relation to this topic, and although you could argue that this case has just as much merit, you need to bear in mind that none of these fast-food companies forced these people to eat their products, ever!
These companies are not lacing their food with addiction forming drugs whilst touting them as clean, healthy food, they are promoting them as a cheap meal - which they are! But they never said it was the healthiest meal you could get!
Comparing this stuff with cigarettes and tobacco is a cop-out! This is food (just!) and it will sustain you and keep you alive if you eat it in moderation. Provided you are sensible in what you eat there is no reason why you cannot enjoy one a meal from one of these places on a regular basis. However, if you choose to eat there every day, eat unhealthily in all your other meals and don’t exercise, then with the best will in the world, you cannot seriously be surprised when you balloon in both size and weight and eventually develop health problems as a side-effect of your years of self-abuse!
Hopefully, sanity will prevail and this will get laughed out of court with a lot of finger-pointing at the deluded porkers who won’t take responsibility for their own actions!
Personally, I think this case is great. I’ve been waiting to hear about something like this for a while. I hope the fast food junkies win.
Now, I agree with many people here, in that people should take responsibility for their own action. That’s what people should do, ideally, but it’s a far cry from what really happens. So, might as well ride the legal system, and raise some awareness while you’re at it.
The lawsuits against the tobacco companies raised huge amounts of awareness. It’s probably not just coincidence that the rates of smoking are going down in the US, in recent years. If the same thing happens with fast food consumption, then great! Who can deny that it would be a very, very, very good idea for Americans to start shying away from nasty fast food?
McDonalds doesn’t say its food is healthy (though it ofen claims some of the menu items are “low fat” or “lean”) but it doesn’t really come clean and say “If you eat enough Big Macs, you’ll get fat, unhealthy, and your chances of contracting cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all sorts of other stuff will skyrocket!”
There are two main problems. One, that the primary target of McDonalds advertising is children. We can’t expect children to know about nutrition, as most adults don’t know diddly about nutrition. If we grow up seeing the McDonalds logo so often, we trust them. That’s just the way it works. We trust them, and can’t believe that they would sell us unhealthy slop.
The second problem is the bigger picture of American nutrition and health. The food pyramid, endorsed by the government, dairy industry, and meat industry, is complete and utter crap. But, one could very well eat fast food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and meet all of the food pyramid’s recommendations. Should ketchup really count as a serving of vegetables?
Until the meat and dairy industry stop lobbying the hell out of our politicians, the American public is not going to get healthier, or thinner. It’s impossible. Raise as much awareness as you want, and the fast food companies will just spend more on advertising, to overshadow all the good you’re trying to do.
It annoying that people immediately start dogging the plaintiffs for not taking responsibility for their own actions, and for not knowing “what’s good for them.” It’s being kind of rude.
Well, in response, I would say that they knew exactly what they were doing. They just didn’t care. Or they didn’t think it was so serious.
I’ve had countless arguments about environmentalism and vegetarianism. Most people who don’t agree with me usually say “I understand the implications of my actions, I just don’t don’t care or don’t agree that they’re as bad as you say.”
So, before you go around telling people that they should be responsible for themself, you should take your own advice. You’re giving your own money to the same industry that the plaintiffs are suing, and are giving that industry money which it can then use to create advertisements that target your children. Every pound of beef you buy gives more money to the beef industry, so they can flood your local schools with bogus nutritional food pyramid propoganda. Is that responsible?
People in glass houses an such . . .
Best,
TGD
Why should McD’s say that?If you eat enough of ANYTHING, you’re gonna have big problems. Hell, You can drink too much water!
Things are getting waaaaay out of hand.
It’s been a few years since grade school and high school, but they do teach the basics of nutrition and the food pyramid in school in the US. There was also a fair amount of media coverage a few years ago when the revised food pyramid came out. They do have nutritional information at the fast food joints.
One difference between this and the tobacco lawsuits (which I also thought were ridiculous), is that the cigarette companies did claim that cigarettes were healthy, and would help you lose weight. This would have been in the early 1960’s at the latest, I think, but it was within the lifetime of those who sued.
Me, I’m pretty sure I’ll be eating fast food for lunch today and I don’t care. If I develop heart disease, cancer, or even bad breath as a result, it’s my responsibility and I’ll take the consequences (but not the super-size, please:) ). I’m rather frightened by a society which would try to protect me from myself. Apparently those suing aren’t.
Debating the ‘merit’ of such a lawsuit is fruitless. I can point out the obvious (There is no such thing as “junk food”, but there is certainly a junk food diet.
And it’s not like we didn’t see this coming. Many tobacco debates mentioned this possibility, as I recall. The fact is lawsuits like these are just welfare for lawyers (one of the most, if not the most, despised occupations in the US, and not without cause mind you) – corporations would rather settle out of court, finding it cost effective since trials are expensive and counterproductive and usually accompanied by negative publicity. In short, this is a shakedown, and it will work admirably, as usual.
Everyone knows this type of litigation is bogus, but thats irrelevant and the lawyers walk away with a big smile on their face. Perfect example why tort reform is vital, a ‘loser pays’ system might help, but the general cognitive development of our average juror is such that it may not help. We can offer an infinite number of cogent, lucid, and logical reasons why a fat tub of lard isn’t entitled to anything other than a modicum of sympathy, but in the end, a perverted legalized method of extortion is what this is about.
Ah yes, odor of morons frying in their own grease, laced with the bile of a roast dalmuti…
Think I’ll pass on this one.
Under the same logic, could we see cases against casinos / bookkeepers for compulsive gambling?
What about sueing the credit card companies for making you run up debts - “I didn’t realise it was real money 'till the bills came in…”
What about cases against modelling companies for creation of eating disorders? “I just HAD to be that thin…”
What about sueing local gyms for NOT advertising enough how good it is to exercise? " I never realised exercise was important…"
What about sueing your employer for insisting you sit at your desk working when you could be losng weight in the gym? Or out having fun - since your very life is just drifting away and being wasted, second by second? “You force me to work when I should be enjoying myself…”
What about sueing your parents for giving birth to you? - we all know life eventually leads to death - birth is the greatest killer of all time! “I would never have died if you hadn’t given birth to me…”
More on the OP story here.
I can’t really see how someone could form an argument to say “I didn’t know” when there is just so much information out there. I know it is generally unhealthy to overeat junk food, but I eat it anyway (on occasion). It is all about moderation, as it is in anything. I hope they lose the case, I see no real good coming from a victory.
In the 1930’s Lucky advertised to women “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet” as a way to promote staying thin. In the 1950’s smoking was beginning to be linked to cancer and some companies started producing filtered smokes would cause less “throat scratch.” I suppose those individuals who started smoking might have a case. If the states had a case against the tobacco companies then many the states could also have a case against fast food.
Incidentally why hasn’t the Federal Government been sued over tobacco? There are many people who didn’t smoke until they joined the military in WWII and found cigarettes and part of their rations.
Marc
Speaking of fast food, can’t this guy just strike up a deal with Subway? I mean, it seemed to work wonders for that Jarrod guy.
Here’s a quote from McDonalds’ website.
" We are committed…
To doing what is right.
To being a good neighbor and partner in your community.
To conducting our business with the environment in mind."
Yeah. Then prove to me that serving nasty, greasy, unhealthy food to children is “right.”
(I won’t get into the “good neighbor” or “with the environment in mind.”)
Here’s a link to a really good article that takes the “other” side of the debate. Here’s a good quote of a quote:
“They are serving extremely high-fat food to people who are at the greatest risk of the health consequences from obesity,” he said. “And by heavily marketing unhealthy foods to low-income children they are encouraging health problems among the segment of the population that can least afford them.”
It’s true. Very true.
A somewhat related question:
Should parents of obese children, who routinely bring their children to fast food restaurants, be considered abusive? Or neglectful? The children obviously can’t be held responsible, so should the parents? Why, or why not?
Again, the “target the children” thing really bothers me. Why the hell should there be McDonalds, Coke, and Pespi products and and advertisements in public schools? (Obviously, the “real” reason is so the schools can buy new books, but we need to look at the system which forces schools to prostitute themselves and the minds of children to these companies.)
A legal battle wiped Joe camel off of the map. Doesn’t Ronald McDonald deserve the same fate?
And lastly . . .
Glad you took the time to post this. It’s really helping eradicate ignorance from the globe. I’m sure you’ll be laughing in the end, though, when you sue me sometime in the future, for my “inabaility” to make you see the light about vegetarianism. “Your honor, I couldn’t know all the stuff he said was true! You know, with the food pyramid and all . . .”
Best,
TGD
I’m not sure what the distinction is that you’re making here - the “gun industry” consists of “specific gun manufacturers”.
The gun lawsuit wasn’t brought by any gun user. It was brought by municipalities (or similar entities) who claimed that they were harmed by the effect of irresponsible sales by gun manufacturers. But they couldn’t identify any specific harm done by any specific gun manufacturer. They just pointed to a general pattern of behaviour by the manufacturers.
Frankly I don’t recall the gun lobby or tobacco lobby pushing legislation. But it’s possible that I’ve forgotten it. But if it is so, it is simply a result of necessity - if the fast food industry comes under legislative attack they’ll probably hire lobbyists like anyone else. In any event, this is all moot, as we are discussing judicial rulings, and not legislative issues.
The food is neither ‘nasty’ or unhealthy. In fact, a McDonalds meal is a reasonably balanced mix of carbs, protein and fat. It is only when you consume it on a (very) regular basis that any health problems can arise. And only them if it is at the expense of an otherwise balanced diet.
High fat compared to what? It is more expensive (certainly in the UK) to eat at McDonalds than it is to cook in and make a rice / pasta dish. How can it thus be aimed at “low income” families? McDonalds is considered a ‘treat’ for kids, not a substitute for home cooked meals.
**
The parents are being neglectful, IMHO. But, again IMHO, it is the parents fault, not the fault of the coporations who offer the choice of convenience food. The distinction is important.
So in this sense, since we have one guy who is claiming harm done by specific companies, would he have to prove specific harm (perhaps complete with cholesterol counts)? And in order to prove this harm was done to him, wouldn’t he have to prove he frequented those establishments?
True, two different beasts, but you gotta admit the NRA is a lot stronger than the… well, whatever the fast-food people are.
Would he not also have to demonstrate that this harm could not have been caused by other factors in his diet? That except for his visits to these 4 establishments, his diet was reasonable?
Here’s a quote from this news article.
“McDonalds’ Quarter Pounder with Cheese
520 Calories - 29 Grams of Fat”
Compared to ANYTHING this is a fatty, unnutritious, unhealthy food that lacks fiber. It’s not difficult to see that.
And yes, it’s cheaper to eat at McDonalds than cook at home, sometimes. But, the quality is also considerably lower. You get what you pay for. Maybe for you, “McDonalds is . . .a ‘treat’ for kids, not a substitute for home cooked meals.” if that’s the case, I applaud you. I think meal times are the most important times of the day. Food should be appreciated, and enjoyed, thoroughly. But, unfortunatley, this is not the case for everyone.
Best,
TGD
I do not agree that eating at McDonalds is cheaper than eating at home.
Okay…I’m aware that this is not the Pit, so I’ll be nice. However, I’m about to express a pretty strong opinion. I’m not angry with you or anyone, aiight? If this comes across as a flame, please understand that it isn’t meant to be that way.
I agree that children deserve proper nutrition. Fast food places aren’t like that. However, I’d be VERY leery of throwing the “abuse” label around. We’ve all heard the stories of CPS throwing their weight around and breaking up innocent families. I honestly don’t want to see a family torn apart simply because the kids enjoy KFC.
It’s called “capitalism”. Believe it or not, businesses have to make money. You may say that ads should have no place in schools, and that advertising in such places is wrong. Moralism aside, the simple fact is that in such a case, everyone wins. The schools get new books, the company makes money, and the kids get products that they enjoy.
You may say that blatant consumerism is immoral. Unless you’re willing to go the full monte and demand a Communist state (no, I’m not calling you a commie), then I honestly don’t see the problem. We’re all consumers. Someone had to sell you the computer, Internet connection, and bandwith that you’re using to read this post. Insofar as marketing to children is concerned, bear in mind that children are also consumers. Didn’t you buy lots of bubble gum, soda pop, and comics when you were a kid? I have lots of fond memories of going to the corner store to pick up a Cherry Coke and a Mars bar every day after school. What influenced my choice of Cherry Coke over Pepsi, or my choice of Atari over Nintendo? Marketing, mostly.
:smack: You’re comparing a marketing campaign designed to increase illegal tobacco sales to Ronald McDonald? With JC, that was obviously a means to get minors addicted to tobacco, as well as to get them to buy tobacco illegally. You have to be 18 years old to buy tobacco (in the US at least), yet there is no age minimum for a Big Mac or a bucket of KFC. Or would you like to see age minimums for those, too? Just Checking.